no certainty” that discriminatory treatment had actually taken place. 174 This view was endorsed by the Supreme Court, which also ruled that the evidence was not sufficient because it was “partial” and did not provide “certainty of the facts that took place.” 175 116. This Court emphasizes that, in a context where prejudice and historical and structural discrimination against LGBTIQ+ persons still prevails, administrative bodies and the courts must be especially careful when dismissing or disregarding testimony, as this practice could be contrary to the American Convention. In no case may testimony be undervalued solely on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression. 117. Thus, as illustrated by Mr. Olivera at the public hearing before this Court, the decisions of the administrative and judicial authorities imposed a standard of proof whereby “the only thing that could prove the discrimination, or could have proven it, was a video of the exact moment in which the acts occurred,” 176 which is clearly a difficult standard of proof to achieve and is disproportionate. In view of this, the Court considers that, although its task is not to determine the factual circumstances of what took place on August 11, 2004, at the Santa Isabel supermarket during the encounter between Mr. Olivera, his partner and employees of said supermarket, the response of the national authorities to a complaint where there were indications of discriminatory treatment by a company, based on the sexual orientation of Mr. Olivera and his partner, implied the imposition of an evidentiary requirement contrary to the standards mentioned above (paras. 104 and 109). This constituted a failure to comply with the obligation to conduct the necessary oversight in order to eliminate possible discriminatory practices and attitudes against the LGBTIQ+ community. B.4.2 Alleged use of discriminatory stereotypes regarding sexual orientation and gender expression in the administrative proceedings 118. With regard to the response of the national authorities in the administrative process, and beyond the considerations already made on the standard of proof applied in the domestic proceedings as a whole, the Court observes that, in its decision of August 31, 2005, the CPC analyzed for the first time the complaint filed by Mr. Olivera, questioning whether it was “justified to demand greater restraint from same-sex couples” in their affectionate behavior, especially when carried out in the presence of children, as occurred in the present case. 177 This approach reflects, ab initio, an unequal treatment when it comes to understanding the amorous conduct expressed by same-sex couples versus heterosexual couples. In this regard, the American Convention – viewed in the light of international standards on private companies and human rights– obliges States to require private companies to treat LGBTIQ+ persons on a strictly equal footing 174 Cf. Superior Court of Justice of Lima, Second Specialized Chamber in Contentious-Administrative Matters, Decision No. 14, of June 10, 2008 (evidence file, folio 69). 175 Cf. Supreme Court of Justice, Permanent Civil Chamber, Decision No. 2145-2009, of June 14, 2010, (evidence file, folio 76). 176 Cf. Statement of Crissthian Manuel Olivera Fuentes rendered at the public hearing held on August 24, 2022, during the Court’s 150th Regular Session. 177 Cf. Consumer Protection Commission (CPC) of the National Institute for the Defense of Competition and Protection of Intellectual Property (INDECOPI), Decision of August 31, 2005 (evidence file, folio 1876). 42